Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.
"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:RM (disambiguation).
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. For information on retitling files, categories, and other items, see § When not to use this page.

Before moving a page or requesting a move, please review the article titling policy and the guidelines on primary topics.

Any autoconfirmed user can move a page using the "Move" option in the editing toolbar; see how to move a page for more information. If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. In such cases, see § Requesting technical moves.
  • Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
  • A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • A page should not be moved and a new move discussion should not be opened when there is already an open move request on a talk page. Instead, please participate in the open discussion.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are typically processed after seven days. If consensus supports the move at or after this time, a reviewer will perform it. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved." When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time, or closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

Separate processes exist for moving certain types of pages, and for changes other than page moves:

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move.

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Requesting technical moves

Shortcuts
Shortcuts

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct method if you tried to move a page, but you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:..." or "The/This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

@QuietHere I don't think it's uncontroversial given the band's website did use the stylized capitalisation Polyamorph (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TG-article Not uncontroversial. This move has been reverted twice (once in 2015 and again in 2018). Please see WP:COMMONNAME. GTrang (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the criteria for a bold move (WP:RMUM) is that "There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title". Given all of these articles were included in a previous RM here that ended with a consensus to not move, they do not meet the criteria. RachelTensions (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the criteria for a bold move (WP:RMUM) is that "There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title". Given all of these articles were included in a previous RM here that ended with a consensus to not move, they do not meet the criteria. RachelTensions (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's Disney Jr. (programming block), which is not a TV channel, so the current disambiguation tag is correct. See WP:NCBC. 162 etc. (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:

  • there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.

Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.

Requesting a single page move

Shortcut

To request a single page move, click on the "New section" (or "Add topic") tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code: 

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 25 December 2024" and sign the post for you.

There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the affected page:

Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as Requests for comment, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Google Ngrams and pageview statistics) and refer to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topics.

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts/Requested moves is transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or noticeboard that might be interested in the move request, as long as this notification is neutral.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. For example, a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates would need to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation because the talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, is a redirect to that centralized discussion page. In this type of case, the requested move should be made using the following code: 

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=(present title of page to be renamed)|new1=(proposed title of page)}}

The |1= unnamed parameter is not used. The |current1= and |new1= parameters are used similar to multiple page moves described below.

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected pages, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).

To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code: 

{{subst:requested move
| current1 = Current title of page 1 (this parameter can be omitted for discussions hosted on a page that is proposed to be moved)
| new1     = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2     = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3     = New title for page 3
| reason   = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.
}}
See also: Template:Requested move/extended blank

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia with current1 set to Wikipedia and current2 set to Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article where the template is placed (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign the request with ~~~~, since the template does this automatically (so if you sign it yourself there will be two copies of your signature at the end of the request). Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of all pages that are included in your request except the one hosting the discussion, to call attention to the move discussion that is in progress and to suggest that all discussion for all of the pages included in the request should take place at that one hosting location.

For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is itself proposed to be moved, it is not necessary to include the |current1=Current title of page 1 for the page hosting the discussion, as its current title can be inferred automatically. Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace, in which case it is necessary to include |current1= to indicate the first article to be moved.

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation) and Cricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:

If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:

is incomplete. Such requests may be completed as a request to decide the best new title by discussion.

If a disambiguation page is in the way of a move, the request may be completed as proposing to add (disambiguation).

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 25 December 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use when the proposed new title is given.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 25 December 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use when the proposed new title is not known.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 25 December 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Survey
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Discussion
Any additional comments:



This template adds subsections for survey and discussion.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:
Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 25 December 2024

– why Example (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted.
Be sure to use the subst: and place this tag at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 25 December 2024

– why Example (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
  • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
  • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
  • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
  • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.

Closing a requested move

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing.[b] Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

Relisting should be done using {{subst:RM relist}}, which automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures).

When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.

If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion, such as by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.

Notes

  1. ^ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement appears on the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

Current discussions

Shortcut
This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 100 discussions have been relisted.

December 25, 2024

December 24, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Christmas and holiday season → Festive season – There have been a few move requests for this page over the years, including one which concluded just a few weeks ago. However, as far as I can see, there has never been a move request to this particular target article title. The present title, “Christmas and holiday season”, feels something of an awkward compromise title between “Christmas season” (which excludes other festivals in this period, such as Chanukah) and “holiday season”, which aside from other issues is ambiguous. “Festive season” is quite a commonly used term to refer to this period, while benefiting from very little ambiguity. It is a much more natural and straightforward article title for this page. Rafts of Calm (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Saskatchewan Progress Party → Saskatchewan Liberal Party – While the current name of the party is the Progress Party, it is not the most notable name this party had. Under its current name, the party has never had a single MLA and finished last in only election (2024) it ever ran in under its current name. A good precedent would be the Alberta Social Credit Party, its current name is the Pro-Life Alberta Political Association, but it is still known by its older, historic, more relevant name. Like the Alberta Socreds, the Saskatchewan Liberals were a prominent party under its historic name. They elected premiers and either led the government or led the opposition. An alternative proposal would be to WP:SPLIT the article into two articles: one for the Saskatchewan Liberal Party and one for the Saskatchewan Progress Party. This would be similar to how there are separate articles for the Yukon Progressive Conservative Party and the Yukon Party. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Marghoobur Rahman → Maulana Marghoobur Rahman – Based on the available English sources, such as Milli Gazette, TwoCircles.net, Hindustan Times, and Radiance Weekly, the name "Maulana Marghoobur Rahman" is predominantly used, aligning with Wikipedia's COMMON NAME policy, which prioritizes the most widely recognized name in reliable sources. Additionally, a search on Google Books confirms that "Maulana Marghoobur Rahman" is extensively used across various books, further reinforcing its suitability for the English title. While the suffix "Bijnori" holds cultural significance in Urdu and is often used to denote his regional identity, it is not commonly found in English sources. Therefore, "Maulana Marghoobur Rahman" is the logical choice for the English Wikipedia title, with "Bijnori" appropriately mentioned within the article to provide context about his origins. If the article were in Urdu, "Marghoobur Rahman Bijnori" would be a more fitting choice. Khaatir (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 23, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Thalassodrominae → Thalassodromidae – Basically undoing the previous move above, since supporters of the denomination Thalassodrominae have rejected its use in favor of the denomination Thalassodromidae in order to have consistency with other opposing studies that use Thalassodromidae. Here[8] is said study, by Pêgas and colleagues in 2023. Subsequent studies[9] [10] that follow a tapejaromorph classification for this group, which would traditionally mean the use of Thalassodrominae, have also employed the denomination Thalassodromidae as well. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Bibliotheca (Pseudo-Apollodorus) → Bibliotheca (Apollodorus) – As far as I know, the author of the Bibliotheca is much more commonly referred to as just "Apollodorus". See, for instance, Google Scholar results (7060 vs 1330), though these shouldn't be taken as absolute (as some authors will often note "Pseudo-Apollodorus" and then use "Apollodorus" throughout, and, conversely, some results for "Pseudo-Apollodorus" seem to be counted under "Apollodorus"). For how he is named in relevant sources, see the following: * Greek mythology reference works: Gantz ("Apollodoros"), Hard ("Apollodorus"), Grimal ("Apollodorus"), Tripp ("Apollodorus"), Oxford Classical Dictionary ("Apollodorus" throughout), Fowler 2013 ("Apollodorus"), Smith ("Apollodorus" throughout) * Translations/editions: Frazer ("Apollodorus"), Smith and Trzaskoma ("Apollodorus"), Hard ("Apollodorus"), Simpson ("Apollodorus"), Papathomopoulos ("Apollodori"), Wagner ("Apollodori") This is obviously not an exhaustive survey, and counterexamples do exist (eg. this book, and a few articles listed on our page); also note that "Ps.-Apollodorus" is occasionally used. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards → Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponomy/Style advice – To be consistent with the rest of the style-advice WP:PROJPAGE essays of topical wikiprojects. There may be a few other stragglers, but they should move to the same consistent naming pattern as well. PS: This isn't even an appropriate use of standard[s], since this page and what it outlines don't qualify under any definition applicable here. At most, this is page reflects the collective (and generally pretty sound but not authoritative) opinions of a small number of topic-devoted editors, and it needs careful review to make sure it actually complies with our WP:P&G that cover style and page-title matters (which most style PROJPAGEs do not until subjected to considerable revision).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 22, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Cabinet of Germany → Federal Government of Germany – "Federal Government of Germany" is the natural, precise, concise and above all consistent title. On the other hand, "Cabinet of Germany" is not commonly recognizable and not a title that readers are likely to look or search for if they wanted to find the German government.[3][4] Furthermore, the current title is colloquial and legally (see Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, sixth section, "VI. The Federal Government") and technically incorrect. The title also differs from all other search engine results on this topic and the official website itself[5].

References

  1. ^ Rickershauser, Peter (March 1972). "Jersey Central had a great fall". Trains. Vol. 32, no. 5. pp. 20–28.
  2. ^ Higgs, Larry (September 16, 2008). "Train tragedy memorialized". Asbury Park Press. p. 27. Retrieved December 23, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
  3. ^ https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Federal+Government+of+Germany%2CCabinet+of+Germany&year_start=1840&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false#
  4. ^ https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Cabinet%7CGovernment
  5. ^ https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en
— Essixt (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Lee Soo-jin → Lee Soo-jin (politician, proportional representation constituency) – Proposing the following moves to try to untangle some ambiguity: Currently there are two politicians with the same name, Lee Su-jin (politician) and Lee Soo-jin. Both are the same name in Korean (이수진). Neither politician is the primary topic; they both have very close to the same amount of average monthly pageviews over the last 12 months. Pageview stats for all Lee Su-jin/Soo-jin articles show large amounts of overlap so WP:NOPRIMARY here: pageview stats Having some trouble coming up with proper disambiguators for the two politicians. Both have the same name, same birth year, same nationality, both are members of the Democratic Party, both served in the National Assembly, and both began serving in the National Assembly beginning in 2020. Some options: Option 1: * Lee Soo-jin represented the Proportional representation constituency, while Lee Su-jin (politician) represented a constituency in Seoul, so one option would be to disambiguate by constituency: Option 2: * Lee Soo-jin was a labor activist prior to her election in 2020, and Lee Su-jin (politician) was a judge, so another option would be to disambiguate by prior notability: Option 3: * Final option would be to disambiguate by birth month, though this assumes the reader already knows their birth month which is unlikely to be the case, but this might be the cleanest way: Also open to any other suggestions from the community for better ways to disambiguate. Whichever option we end up with, after this move, Lee Soo-jin should be redirected to the disambiguation page at Lee Su-jin. And, if you're replying in support, please state which of the three options you're supporting (if any), to make it easier on the closer. Thank you! RachelTensions (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Matthew Shepard → Murder of Matthew Shepard – Per WP:DEATHS and WP:ONEEVENT. This is going to be controversial but still it should be done. He has no notability besides his murder. He became famous because he died and before that he was a complete unknown. People might say he has been notable in other things but that is only a consequence of being murdered. People should leave their emotional bias behind and look at the facts. Another option is to split an article called "Murder of Matthew Shepard” about the death itself while the notability and legacy will remain in the main article. Theparties (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 21, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Lingayatism → Lingayat Sect – There were prior attempts to move the page, but not with proper citations and references and hence were rejected. I propose the name change of Page to "Lingayat Sect" from "Lingayatism" once again. Lingayat is a sect not a religion. Every source mentions it as a sect and a community. [1][2][3][4][5] Thank You!

References

  1. ^ https://www.jstor.org/stable/2844333
  2. ^ https://officerspulse.com/2024/01/14/lingayats-veerashaivas/
  3. ^ https://optimizeias.com/lingayat-sect/
  4. ^ https://www.jstor.org/stable/41856366
  5. ^ https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lingayat
PerspicazHistorian (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Texture (chemistry) → Crystallographic texture – The actual name does not make any sense as what is reported in the page is "Crystallographic texture". It is not a chemical property as who requested the previous move argued. Clearly who did it does not know at all the field and his comments should be disregarded completely. There was another comment complaining with it but it was disregarded even if it was correct. I work in this field, I wrote plenty of articles, chapters on the subject and did contribute to the page years ago and I know or did collaborate with most of the authors in the references. The title before the chemistry addition was also not proper because erroneously someone did change the original "crystallographic texture" into crystalline texture (not exactly the same meaning), but it was way better than Texture (chemistry). Chemistry and physical chemistry have nothing to do with crystallographic texture. The comment on amorphous materials is wrong and does not make any sense. We study the texture of crystalline materials, hence not amorphous. It is called then crystallographic texture to distinguish it from other texture types. The fact that some materials are amorphous and thus they don't have a crystallographic texture (this can be debated, we simply cannot measure it if present) cannot take us to the conclusion that texture is not a material science subject (I am a materials scientist BTW). The title change did get unnoticed by the experts in the field up to now. A change to revert it to the original one, Crystallographic texture, or Texture (crystallographic), must be made. 2001:B07:5D38:CC8F:DC5E:ACE:B8F2:3A96 (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Bærum mosque shooting → 2019 Bærum murder and mosque shooting – Pursuant to the discussion above, which no one responded to: I have been wanting to improve this article for two years, since it is entirely stuck in the breaking news aftermath of when it happened instead of the later coverage, but I am frustrated by its scope, which makes it difficult to reflect what non-breaking news sources cover about this case. While all of the breaking coverage focuses on the mosque shooting, later coverage tends to focus both on Ihle-Hansen's murder (see the books, the docuseries, later news coverage) with about equal weight to the mosque attack. This is a problem because there was a separate motive for the killing of his sister, the background for what lead up to this event heavily involves her, and the more severe sentence Manshaus received was for murdering Ihle-Hansen, not for the failed mosque shooting. This is very close to what the Norwegian wikipedia titles its article on this case. I would title it closer to what the books and documentaries do, but they are usually titled after Manshaus's name. I am open to other suggestions as I know this isn't perfect but I do feel that any title for this article needs to not strictly focus it on the mosque event. The year is optional, but according to WP:NCE if an event is not broadly known it should include the year. This event is not widely known outside of Norway, but if people feel otherwise it could be titled Bærum murder and mosque shooting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Leptospermum scoparium → Mānuka – Per WP:NCFLORA, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNISABILITY. WP:NCFLORA states that we should follow usage in reliable sources, and that exceptions to the use of scientific names can be made when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural role or use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany. Mānuka has a massive cultural significance in New Zealand (particularly for Māori) and is known for its honey worldwide. Reliable sources overwhelmingly favour the name Mānuka over the scientific name, with there being three times as many academic results for a search of Mānuka (with or without the macron) compared to the scientific name. Ngrams also show overwhelming preference for Manuka over the scientific name. The use of the macron is proposed for consistency with other conventions for NZ-based articles, where macrons are used when the common name is of Māori origin and correct orthography calls for them. Turnagra (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – LANCO (band) → LANCO – Per the precedent of SHeDAISY, k.d. lang, CCH Pounder, JCPenney, and other articles, non-standard case may be used if there is overwhelming majority to do so. Reputable sources such as AllMusic, People, and Billboard render the name in all-caps, and I found few to no sources referring to the band as just "Lanco". Of the inbound links, page hits, and non-wikipedia search results, there is almost no traffic for LANCO regarding its use in reference to a defunct airline. By comparison, the band's article has a much larger inbound link and view count. In short, it seems as if anyone looking for LANCO in all-caps is without question looking for a currently active band, not a short lived defunct airline. And the all-caps spelling seems to be overwhelmingly preferred. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 20, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Intersex and LGBT → Intersex and LGBTQ – Following moves of WP:CONSUB. However, I noticed this case is a bit more specific, because it also deals with LGBTI. So if we move to LGBTQ, LGBTQI or LGBTIQ should also be notable, and they technically are. LGBTQI+, for example, is used by United Nations. LGBTQIA+ is also used worldwide, so I wouldn't oppose a different move in the acronym. It should also be noted it's using Intersex and LGBT as nouns, so alternative suggestions are appreciated. Noun terms such as community, identity, acronym, or topics are possible examples. LIrala (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Second Severn Crossing → Prince of Wales Bridge – I am pretty convinced, in the 6 years since the last time it was open to discussion, the use of Second Severn Crossing has fallen significantly in favour of the Prince of Wales bridge, considering both its official name and WP:COMMONNAME. Aware this is a controversial issue for some, for most independent sources and local/neighbouring reporting, the use of Second Severn Crossing has become rare compared to the Prince of Wales bridge, to refer to it specifically, while "Severn Crossings" often used to refer to them both together. A similarly named bridge in Canada has now been renamed. I struggled to find examples of "Second Severn Crossing" being used as its common name, even when a handful of times in recent times, given as its former name. *Bristol Live - "Miles of congestion formed over the Prince of Wales bridge" *BBC News - "M4 Prince of Wales bridge is also currently closed" *Wales Online [26] - "The Prince of Wales Bridge is three miles long...", "Series of closures on M4 Prince of Wales bridge.." *South Wales Argus - "newer M4 Prince of Wales Bridge remains open." *Traffic Wales - "M4 Prince of Wales bridge resurfacing" *The Sun - "The M4 Prince of Wales Bridge has barriers..." *Express - "Major police incident shuts Prince of Wales bridge" *Stroud Times - "advised the westbound M4 Prince of Wales Bridge" *Penarth Times - "M4 network congested after Prince of Wales Bridge crash" *Barry and District News - M4 Prince of Wales Bridge closed tonight with diversion *Visit Monmouthshire - and the Prince of Wales Bridge without paying a penny. *Welsh Gov - and Prince of Wales Bridge are now in operation. *Gloucestershire Live[ - Warning as M4 Prince of Wales Bridge to face several closures *Malvern Gazette - M48 and Prince of Wales bridge could close.. *Somerset Live - Amazing photos show above, below and inside Prince of Wales Bridge on M4 *North Wales Chronicle - traffic being diverted via the M4 Prince of Wales Bridge. *The Telegraph - traffic diverted via the M4 Prince of Wales Bridge. *New Civil Engineer - National Highways’ wind tunnel tests for Prince of Wales Bridge barrier replacement AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Bindi (decoration) → Bindi – This is the primary topic. Below I've explained why articles and others listed on the current page 'Bindi' are not the primary topics. Note that Bindi (decoration) has had about 30,000 views in past 30 days: # Bindii (disambiguation): Redirects to Bindii, a completely unrelated article about plant species cluster, with different spelling and 697 views in last 30 days. # Bindiya: A disambiguation page with completely different spelling and 31 views. # Bhindi: term for okra in Indic languages, and a person who knows an Indic language will mostly never confuse a Bindi with a Bhindi, got 99 hits in last 30 days. # Bindy: A disambiguation page with different spelling and 83 views, with the articles in it getting 14, and 56 views. The article with most views is Bindy Johal with 7,275 views, again a different spelling, and unrelated. # Bindi (name): Disambiguation page with 99 views, and all the pages in it but two have a combined page view count of less than 800, #*Groovy Girls (around 1000 views) doll line: Has just 2 mentions of Bindi in a long list of other dolls, #*Bindi Irwin: By far the only and the biggest challenger with around 60,000 views, can be disambiguated with a hatnote. Thanks, ExclusiveEditor 🔔 Ping Me! 07:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 19, 2024

  • (Discuss) – 2023 periodic review of Westminster constituencies → 2023 review of Westminster constituencies – I have made this into a request move, here is my original comment:

    As far as I can see, though I may be wrong, this article is one of the only places to refer to this review as "periodic". Of the Boundary Commissions, they all refer to it as "2023 Review of Parliamentary constituencies", with England shorting it to "2023 Review" and Wales to "2023 Parliamentary Review", whilst Scotland and NI do not shorten it in their titles. The HoC calls it "Boundary review 2023", the BBC a "Boundary review" and from a Google search of "2023 periodic review of Westminster constituencies" the only link on the first page that uses that wording is to this page. Additionally this review is not "periodic" continuing from the previous reviews, referred to as as such with ordinals on Wikipedia and other sources, according to legislation, as amended in 2020, the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 requires the Boundary Commissions to report "(a) before 1 July 2023,(b) before 1 October 2031, and (c) before 1 October of every eighth year after that." As Wikipedia is meant to use titles which are in common use and recognisable, I propose that the title be changed and any references to it as well.LandmarkFilly54 (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    LandmarkFilly54 (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

December 18, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Schuster (footballer) → Schuster (Portuguese footballer) – Bernd Schuster played for Barcelona, Real Madrid, Atlético Madrid and Germany. A footballer called Schuster is much more likely to be a reference to Bernd. Google Book search is skewed by references to the publisher Simon & Schuster, but still every search for "Schuster football" or "Schuster footballer" points to Bernd if referring to a person. I won't buy the argument that Bernd Schuster has a first name: if a random footballer in Bermuda took the nickname "Messi", is he "Messi (footballer)" because the real one has a first name? Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gascon dialect → Gascon (language variety) – The precise classifcation of Gascon is controversial. While most scholars consider it to be a dialect of Occitan, Posner and Sala note that it is less comprehensible than Catalan (which is typically classified separately from Occitan) to other southern Occitan speakers. Moreover, Gascon has a standardized variety, Aranese, with official status in the Val d'Aran region of Catalonia, which differs from the literary standard of Occitan. Kristol 2023 asserts that Gascon was "already considered a specific language in the Middle Ages," and Carles and Glessgen 2024 refer to Occitan and Gascon as "two languages." As the terms "language" and "dialect" are ambiguous and somewhat subjective, linguists tend to circumvent extralinguistic polemics by using the term "language variety" to refer to a linguistic system. By characterizing Gascon as a "dialect," the current title appears to clash with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality by favouring a traditional but contested view. The term "language variety" would be a more useful characterization, as it would avoid the use of the ambiguous term "dialect," which tends to evoke social, historical, and political considerations rather than strictly linguistic ones. Conocephalus (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. cyberdog958Talk 18:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – HomeKit → Apple Home – Proposing page be renamed Apple Home to reflect the name of the platform, whereas the current name (HomeKit) is one of two supported software frameworks that work inside the platform. The intro sentence should also be rewritten to something like "Apple Home is a smart home platform that uses the HomeKit and Matter software frameworks. Shivertimbers433 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2024 Al-Mustariha massacre → 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria – Consistency. This article should be named like 2024 Homs airstrikes or April 2017 Turkish airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. Because these air strikes are organised for enemy sides of the perpetrator's and some civillians killed in those air strikes. This title means that Turkey only carries out air strike to massacre innocent civilians. However, this airstrike is only one of 191 airstrikes against the SDF-YPG, therefore we cannot seperate this air strike from other 190 air strikes. All of them are carried out within 2024. The content also mentions the death toll from other airstrikes. Also these airstrikes belongs to Hasakah province, Raqqa province and rural Aleppo. This title mentions 11 civilians in Raqqa province but how about other 6 civillian deaths in Hasakah province? If you look at death toll, military personnels also killed besides civillians and this means that Turkish Air Force didn't target civillians especially. Also it's ridiculous to target little amount of civillians in a village. If Turkish Air Force want to kill civillians, bombing big city centers is more efficient way like Israel did in Gaza Strip. Therefore that title is biased and we cannot named this event as a massacre just for killed civillians because more military personnels killed in these air strikes. Seondly, wikipedia there's a village named Mustariha and it's located at Idlib. However news says it's a village in the suburbs of Ain Issa. I cannot find location of the village. It's very interesting. All in all, this article should be moved to "2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria" However we can use northern Syria but I'm not sure about geographic naming. Note: If the title I propose is appropriate, the content should be revised accordingly, because it gives the impression that the attack was made specifically for this village and targeted especially civillians in this village.--Sabri76'talk 17:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Janet Mead → Sister Janet Mead – Subject is best (only) known as Sister Janet Mead. Use commonly recognizable names WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)". WP:STAGENAME. "The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title," That is Sister Janet Mead. Whilst WP:TITLESINTITLES does say titles like "Sister" are "not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles" it specifically states an exception "to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known". If you brought up Janet Mead to people most people would have no idea who you are talking about. Whereas Sister Janet Mead many people would immediately know, that Sister that sung the Lords Prayer. Just google "Janet Mead" and see the results. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss) – Template:NF → Template:NFLD – Most Canadian provinces have just one flag template named with the province's two-letter postal abbreviation as the template name; this one is a special case because the province's name was changed from just "Newfoundland" to Newfoundland and Labrador in 2001, necessitating separate "NF" and "NL" templates because the province name next to the (same) flag needs to be two different things based on whether it's a pre-2001 or post-2001 context.
    However, because the Spanish Wikipedia uses the template name "NF" as its basic "formatting the vital statistics of people on biographical articles" (birth year, death year, defaultsort name, etc.) template, there ends up being a constant need to monitor this template for incorrect "vital stats" uses on articles, drafts and user sandbox pages that have been translated or just copy-pasted over from Spanish.
    So because of that extenuating circumstance, I believe that there's a substantive case for treating this template as a special case that varies from the titles of its other provincial siblings to avoid that problem — and since "NF" is an old, no longer used postal abbreviation rather than the current one, the variant won't be nearly as difficult to justify as it would have been if the conflict were affecting "NL".
    Accordingly, I propose that this template use the province's original postal abbreviation "NFLD" instead of the two-letter transitional form "NF", with all of its (thankfully not that many) uses updated to the new name, and "NF" not retained as a redirect so that we stop having to deal with the flag of Newfoundland being wrongly placed at the bottom of Spanish and Mexican and Latin American biographies.
    Alternatively, if there's a way that "NL" could be coded to enable a "Newfoundland and Labrador" vs. "Newfoundland" switch, we could just add that and move all the NF uses to NL-with-switch, but I wouldn't know how to do that (or even if it's possible), although it might even be a better solution than moving this if it is possible. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Gwon Yul → Gwon Yul (general) – Seems to be a conflict between the two WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. Gwon Yul currently does not meet the criteria for primary topic by usage WP:PT1: of the three ambiguous "Kwon Yul" articles, the army general is last in pageviews. Over the last year, the other two Kwon Yul articles have received an average monthly pageviews of around 15,000, while the army general has received only 1400. [55] However, by WP:PT2 (long term significance), the army general is obviously the primary topic. Given the conflicting criteria, and what seems to be a very large pageview disparity between the army general and the other Kwon Yul articles (army general receiving 10x less traffic), I thought it'd be appropriate to open a discussion to see if the army general is indeed the primary topic or if there is WP:NOPRIMARY here. A move here would also involve retargeting the redirect left at Gwon Yul to Kwon Yul (which is the same name, 권율, just romanized slightly differently) RachelTensions (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Unknown Archon → ? – This "Unknown Archon" sounds like this is a proper name, but it's apparently not, this is just uppercase added to a translation of one of the general descriptions used in historiography about this story. The article is a bit of a mess - most of it is the lead section that doesn't actually summarize the body; half the body is a verbatim copy from a 20th-century translation of a 10th-century primary source, and then there's a few paragraphs which kind of say yeah none of this stuff in the lead is necessarily true true. So I don't really know if there's a good name for this topic, or if this small amount of context has potential - should it just be merged into a more general article? Joy (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Stadion Miejski (Białystok) → Białystok Municipal Stadium – I am submitting this request to revert the article title of the stadium in Białystok to its previous title, Białystok Municipal Stadium in light of recent actions by the user FromCzech. The move to the Polish-language title Stadion Miejski (Białystok) was made unilaterally and appears inconsistent with Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically WP:UE. This guideline encourages the use of English translations where appropriate to maintain accessibility for the global readership. FromCzech has argued for the name change without prior discussion, potentially as a reaction to a naming debate on Lokotrans Aréna that I initiated. This recent move does not reflect a consensus, and it also disrupts the established consistency within the "Football venues in Poland" category, where nearly all stadium names are translated into English. Notable examples include Father Władysław Augustynek Stadium, Gdynia Municipal Stadium, Kielce Municipal Stadium, and Raków Municipal Stadium. I urge that the title "Białystok Municipal Stadium" be restored to uphold Wikipedia’s principles of consistency and transparency, while also preventing this matter from being affected by personal disputes or editing motivated by anything other than Wikipedia's editorial standards. Paradygmaty (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Minnesota Fats → Minnesota Fats (character) – Why isn't the article at Minnesota Fats? That is by far the most common name used here to refer to him. Every source in the article uses Minnesota Fats, to the point even his NYT obit called him that and not Rudolph Wanderone, and the word "Wanderone" is hardly used in the text of the article instead of "Fats". Sure, he named himself after a fictional character, but inbound links and page views suggest most people looking for "Minnesota Fats" are looking for the pool player and not the character. It's blatantly obvious Wanderone's legacy has far outlasted that of the fictional character from whom he derived his name. This seems a crystal-clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME to have his article at "Rudolph Wanderone", and to me, it's like if we arbitrarily decided to move Lady Gaga's article to "Stefani Germanotta". I'm genuinely shocked no one else has even considered this issue in the past ten years. Previous discussion in 2014 had everyone pulling a different direction, and me in a more hostile mood, so I'm hoping to get a consensus this time with a clearer focus from both me and others. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed requests

See "Bot considerations"

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/federal-cabinet/1988626-1988626
  2. ^ https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-en/chancellery/extension-of-the-federal-chancellery
  3. ^ https://www.publikationen-bundesregierung.de/pp-en/publishers/federal-chancellery-bk-
  4. ^ "FirstGroup Plc - Agreement to acquire RATP London" (Press release). Aberdeen: FirstGroup. 10 December 2024. Retrieved 10 December 2024 – via Financial Times.

See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
11:27, Wednesday, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1264383951"